A big August vote: How do we pay for Seattle’s beloved parks?

Seattle voters are being asked to take a big leap: Should they vote to create a Seattle Park District, with taxing powers and run by the City Council … or rely on levies which have left a $267 million maintenance backlog?

As an umpire, coach and avid softball player, Seattle paralegal Michael Maddux used the subpar condition of several Seattle Parks playgrounds as he sought to persuade a couple dozen Rainier Valley residents to vote for a Seattle Parks District.

In particular, Maddux cited the big soft spot behind home plate at Garfield Playfield, and contrasted South End playfields and community centers to spiffy counterparts in places like Magnolia and Northeast Seattle.

“The Laurelhurst playfields are pristine,” he said. “They pay for it. This is a way to ensure equity. Parks levies have not been kind to underprivileged neighborhoods. The city has been screwing over South End neighborhoods for years.”

Seattle parks are beloved by young and old: A kid walks through a playfield at Albert Davis Park in Lake City.

But Maddux and debate partner Thatcher Bailey had a hard sell Wednesday night at the Southeast District Council. Its members didn’t trust who would be umpire if a Seattle Parks District is created.

The Parks District vote is what Vice President Joe Biden would describe as a “big (bleeping) deal,” even though it comes before Seattle voters during the dog days of summer, when the Emerald City tries to tune OUT politicians and political issues.

Proposition 1 on the ballot would create a metropolitan park district to pay for, maintain, operate and improve the Emerald City’s parks, community centers, pools and recreation facilities. Its boundaries would be exactly the same as the city’s.

The Seattle Park District would be a new taxing jurisdiction and would create a governing board that could levy up to 75 cents per $1,000 of assessed value on the city’s property owners.

Its governing board would be the Seattle City Council. In giving taxing authority to the Park District, Seattle’s city fathers and mothers would no longer have to turn to voters for park levies, such as the park acquisition levy passed in 2008.

And there lies the rub, at least to the Southeast District Council — and longtime parks advocate Ray Akers.

A woman sleeps in a hammock at Green Lake Park. We love Seattle parks, but have snoozed during a big buildup in work that needs doing.

“We are underserved,” Akers told Maddux. “The people underserving us are the City Council. Because it is them, I wouldn’t trust them to enhance dog catching. I don’t trust them. I want the power of my levies.”

Seattle loves its parks. They provide the city with open space, outdoor sports in summer and basketball courts for the winter months. They provide programs for at-risk kids.

They teach us about nature, even if that means witnessing a bald eagle’s very public dismemberment of a crow at Seward Park. America’s national symbol is in residence at Seward and Discovery parks.

The parks have accumulated a $267 maintenance backlog. The lion’s share of the last voter-passed levy went to acquisition, rather than mundane tasks like fixing roofs. The money allocated to parks in the city’s general fund cannot keep up with inflation.

“Levies are designed to grow the system and build shiny new things,” Maddux argued in one furious Facebook debate. “The purpose of this measure is to get out of the levy system and instead focus on shining up what we already have.”

Cal Anderson Park, on Capitol Hill, provides outdoor recreation even for The Stranger writers and other city-dwelling creatures.

But David Miller, a former City Council candidate and community activist, responded: “The Parks Department is badly broken, just like we really screwed up when we did Bridging the Gap without really knowing the costs.”

Bridging the Gap was the huge levy designed to repair city streets. “Fix This Street” signs decorated such arterials as Union Street, 38th Avenue South and even Boston Street near Mayor Murray’s house. In driving down 38th Avenue South to the Southeast District Council meeting, however, one is reminded: The streets haven’t been fixed.

“The fact is we are throwing money at a dysfunctional and disorganized department in the hopes that more money solves this problem, without really understanding the depth of the problem,” Miller argued.

The Park District taxing powers would be modest, about $4 a month on a $400,000 Seattle home.

The district would have a Citizens Oversight Committee to advise the council, with four members of the Park Board plus seven additional community members.

The city would continue to use general fund revenues to pay the lion’s share of parks costs, and would continue to allocate money at 2014 levels plus inflation.

Proposition 1 has attracted the usual combatants. The Seattle Times editorial page opposes the Park District, as it does just about everything that would raise new revenue for a good purpose. The Stranger has managed to use the F-word in urging a vote in favor.

The city’s political establishment has lined up behind the Seattle Parks District. The City Council voted unanimously to put Prop. 1 on the ballot. Seattle Mayor Ed Murray, and predecessor Mike McGinn, are among the supporters.

Still, the city’s parks lovers — and even its “good government” groups — are divided.

In urging a Yes vote on Prop. 1, the Municipal League of King County declared: “Establishing a sustainable funding source for parks is preferable to the existing method of using periodic levies that have emphasized capital projects over basic maintenance.”

But the League of Women Voters has come down on the No side.

“The League supports the clear separation of powers,” it said. “The primary role of the City Council should be legislative, not administrative. The parks have historically been administered by the mayor’s office. Proposition 1 grants the Seattle City Council administrative authority over the parks.”

The system created by Prop. 1 would be forever. “The metropolitan parks district cannot be dissolved by a vote of the people,” The League added.

Maddux was on his game before Southeast Seattle residents. He hit hard at what needs fixing in the Emerald City’s park system, and the oversight committee’s fair representation. And he spoke the truth about why a new mechanism is needed for parks.

“Unfortunately,” said Maddux, “Olympia has been unable and unwilling to give cities the revenue streams they need for basic operations.”

Still, Proposition 1 must be rated a slight underdog. A lot of voters cling to levies as a way of approving or disapproving how city services operate. The City Council is widely distrusted, witness Seattle’s vote last November to move to a district-based system.